Davey Posted August 15, 2013 at 03:12 PM Share Posted August 15, 2013 at 03:12 PM I read almost all of the opinion and from what I can tell the court said that basically NYC can charge whatever it wants as long as it helps defray the cost. So if NYC managed to make it cost $2000 they could charge $1500 and more to the citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted August 26, 2013 at 08:39 PM Share Posted August 26, 2013 at 08:39 PM Petition for Rehearing En Banc was filed on 7/23, I just checked the docket, nada. That's 34 calendar days (counting weekends and crap) and still nothing. Maybe they're drafting a doozie of a denial or just holding it as long as they can so Jensen can't file cert petition ASAP after denial (let's face it, CA2 is...ehm yeah). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted September 22, 2013 at 04:40 AM Share Posted September 22, 2013 at 04:40 AM (edited) Request for rehearing denied. Kwong Order Dening Rehearing.pdf Next up is filing for writ of certiorari Edited September 22, 2013 at 04:42 AM by C0untZer0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 22, 2013 at 07:18 PM Share Posted September 22, 2013 at 07:18 PM Took them long enough. They waited damn near 60 calendar days gee I wonder why. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted September 23, 2013 at 02:37 AM Share Posted September 23, 2013 at 02:37 AM Took them long enough. They waited damn near 60 calendar days gee I wonder why. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2Clock for cert filing runs from the date of the enbanc denial though. I think they waited just because they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 23, 2013 at 05:03 PM Share Posted September 23, 2013 at 05:03 PM Yeah but when petition is filed it takes time for all of the responses and amici to come in plus SCOTUS usually grants the government an extension to file a response.. They play games with that to keep it from being distributed for conference until the last minute. I also love how there's no vote tally Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 7, 2013 at 02:57 AM Share Posted December 7, 2013 at 02:57 AM (edited) No. 13A567 Title: Shui W. Kwong, et al., Applicantsv.Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York, et al.Docketed: December 4, 2013Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitCase Nos.: (12-1578) ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dec 2 2013 Application (13A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2013 to February 2, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.Dec 4 2013 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 3, 2014. Edited December 7, 2013 at 02:57 AM by skinnyb82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted December 7, 2013 at 03:51 AM Share Posted December 7, 2013 at 03:51 AM (edited) Took them long enough. They waited damn near 60 calendar days gee I wonder why.Clock for cert filing runs from the date of the enbanc denial though. I think they waited just because they could. You know the reason. Because the gummint has a bottomless checkbook to pay for the continued denial of rights, drawn from the purses of the very same people it continues to oppress. We pay for our own chains, and then have to pay the cost of fighting not just to have them removed but to keep them on, and then we pay the penalty for their being there in the first place. It'd be a game changer if a 1983 suit actually succeeded, and Madigan, Bloomberg, Daley or any of the other grabbers had to pay the legal fees and damages out of pocket. Edited December 7, 2013 at 03:52 AM by Tango7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM Share Posted February 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM After the ruling in Peruta, now is the perfect time to send Kwong to SCOTUS. David Jensen has until next Tuesday to file for writ of certiorari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illhunter Posted February 17, 2014 at 04:26 PM Share Posted February 17, 2014 at 04:26 PM (edited) fees = fringe as in "shall not be infringed". Edited February 17, 2014 at 04:26 PM by illhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM Share Posted February 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM Jensen has until the end of the day to file cert petition unless he already has and its not been docketed. Nominal fee to exercise a right ok so lets bring back poll taxes. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted February 17, 2014 at 11:22 PM Share Posted February 17, 2014 at 11:22 PM Hes going to file Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 18, 2014 at 01:50 AM Share Posted February 18, 2014 at 01:50 AM I think he has until the end of the day tomorrow, because today was a holiday, at least it is a federal court holiday - Washington's Birthday. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/#url=2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted February 18, 2014 at 02:34 AM Share Posted February 18, 2014 at 02:34 AM It's like one of those long distance chess games through the US mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 19, 2014 at 08:28 PM Share Posted February 19, 2014 at 08:28 PM I looked at the case docket from SAF's site and I don't see a filing. Can anyone find the petition for cert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyP Posted February 20, 2014 at 11:33 PM Share Posted February 20, 2014 at 11:33 PM I see it is now showing as Kwong v de Blasio, but I don't see anything relating to the filing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 21, 2014 at 05:31 PM Share Posted February 21, 2014 at 05:31 PM Docket now shows (as stated above) appellee is Bill De Blasio and cert petition was filed on 2/17 Feb 17 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 24, 2014) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 21, 2014 at 06:37 PM Share Posted February 21, 2014 at 06:37 PM What docket are you looking at? I'm looking at the Supreme Court site and don't see it... http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13a567.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 21, 2014 at 06:44 PM Share Posted February 21, 2014 at 06:44 PM I just searched for it on SCOTUS's website. New docket, it's been assigned a case number also but no one seems to have the cert petition. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-993.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 21, 2014 at 09:34 PM Share Posted February 21, 2014 at 09:34 PM Here it is. A good read.Kwong Petition for Cert.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 22, 2014 at 04:31 AM Share Posted February 22, 2014 at 04:31 AM (edited) It's an excellent read. What I don't get is why CA2 even believes that means-end scrutiny below strict scrutiny should be applied in a case which involves charging money (I don't buy that NYC isn't profiting off issuance of pistol permits) to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Are all of the CA2 judges in full-blown Heller and McDonald denial? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Edited February 22, 2014 at 04:33 AM by skinnyb82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsxdm Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:32 AM Share Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:32 AM Are all of the CA2 judges in full-blown Heller and McDonald denial? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2They are just doing what their handlers are telling them to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 22, 2014 at 11:49 AM Share Posted February 22, 2014 at 11:49 AM Jensen definitely gives a good breakdown of the different standards of scrutiny applied by the circuit courts, including the Third Circuit's extremely lax "rational basis" in Drake which basically says "if a state passed a gun law they must have done so with the public's safety in mind, therefor the law must further a public safety interest" or that is like saying "when it comes to gun control, the state is right because the state is right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumanEvents Posted February 24, 2014 at 04:18 AM Share Posted February 24, 2014 at 04:18 AM Here it is. A good read. Thank you for that. It's a really well written petition, and I'm hopeful that they will accept it. The splits among the circuits as to nominal fees and equal protection review standards should make them want to take it, but sometimes they shy away from topics if they feel the time isn't right. Living in NYC, I really want to see this law struck down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 24, 2014 at 04:42 PM Share Posted February 24, 2014 at 04:42 PM Jensen hits a home run in the first few paragraphs. It is unconstitutional to charge ANY fee to exercise a right. If this case is taken up and the pistol permit scheme is struck down, so goes the NJ (or MA, I forget) FID system and the FOID here. It doesn't matter if the fee only covers expenses and there is no profit. It is still unconstitutional. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgmeyer Posted February 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM Share Posted February 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM SCOTUS has apparently denied cert on all three pending gun cases... http://www.scotusblog.com/ Disappointing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 24, 2014 at 10:55 PM Share Posted February 24, 2014 at 10:55 PM Yeah I'm not surprised anymore. I had my fingers crossed but no high expectations. They did take Abramski and Castleman this term so who knows what or why they do what they do. It would appear that the cases must be pretty straightforward or outlandish. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted March 13, 2014 at 02:25 PM Share Posted March 13, 2014 at 02:25 PM Didn't the cost of the FOID only get increased after going through the courts where the compromise was to then make it good for 10 years?If so (that's what I thought I remembered) this just seems so fundamentally a poll tax, don't you think we could win this (same argument again) in IL and who cares if they appeal it to SCOTUS. There should be no expiration unless you loose the right with these kinds of costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 13, 2014 at 04:53 PM Share Posted March 13, 2014 at 04:53 PM They amended the Act to make a FOID good for 10 yrs and increased the fee to $10. IL is running a loss of $2/card, 20% on each FOID printed. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsxdm Posted March 13, 2014 at 05:50 PM Share Posted March 13, 2014 at 05:50 PM They amended the Act to make a FOID good for 10 yrs and increased the fee to $10. IL is running a loss of $2/card, 20% on each FOID printed. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2The state wants the FOID card, fine, then they should pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now